#19 Highest Peak of All Time (Ewing '90 wins)

[thizznation]

Alright. Undesirably, I feel like I'm about to play the devil's advocate wtih this next post...And I don't mind if someone calls me out for being too out there with this statement. Also, I am not calling out therealbig3, I think he is a good poster with sensible views that he backs up with statistical facts. I'm just trying to capture a viewpoint that has been kicked around for a few days in the discussion of era adjustment.

I do think basketball as a whole has gotten better since the 60's and 70's, and that it's harder for a smart, talented player to separate himself from the average now than back then, mainly because gameplay in general wasn't as advanced.

Why was Bill Russell voted so highly, so easily? His fantastic defense? Against these same inefficient and archaic offenses that we are talking about now? It feels like the era gets a different perspective when we discuss Russell, to that of now, when we are discussing West.



Like I said in my disclaimer, I'm not trying to incite attacks and if what I'm saying is out there then let me know... I do ask some common courtesy in your responses though. Thank you.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, comparing scoring between T-Mac and West is tough, because although West was scoring way higher than league average efficiency in comparison to T-Mac in terms of both peak and in general, and that he would probably be a great 3 point shooter, I could also point out how much better offense in general was in T-Mac's era than in West's.

West played so much better than average, because he was a really smart player (like Oscar) in an era where offense was pretty dumb. So not surprisingly, him and Oscar look super-efficient compared to league average. And from watching games from the 60's and 70's, and from reading other threads about that era, perimeter defense was nowhere near as strong then as it is today. Many players had wide open looks from midrange on a routine basis, and their shots were rarely contested.

I do think basketball as a whole has gotten better since the 60's and 70's, and that it's harder for a smart, talented player to separate himself from the average now than back then, mainly because gameplay in general wasn't as advanced.

I've been kind of staying away from the 3-point stuff with West because it's so messy, but yeah, West played in about the worst time for someone of his skillset and still had huge impact.

The argument that West had inflated impact back then compared to now because he was smart in a land of stupidity is amusing. I'd argue that in an era where we've seen Nash emerge as the best offensive player largely because of his brain, that the importance of being smart hasn't really diminished, it's just morphed.

[Doctor MJ]

Why was Bill Russell voted so highly, so easily? His fantastic defense? Against these same inefficient and archaic offenses that we are talking about now? It feels like the era gets a different perspective when we discuss Russell, to that of now, when we are discussing West.

Like I said in my disclaimer, I'm not trying to incite attacks and if what I'm saying is out there then let me know... I do ask some common courtesy in your responses though. Thank you.

I actually think in general, a lot of the people knocking West are pretty iffy on Russell too, they just aren't as confident in holding the line with Russell.

And I think one legit reason for that is that Russell was truly having off the charts impact with off the charts team success on the side of the ball where you the efficiency stats aren't so bad looking.

The thing with me and Oscar & West is that I just don't see much of an argument to say that they weren't really really smart in how they played the game, and since the really smart players are still having huge success, I find the skepticism weird. (To be clear, when I say "smart", I'm not talking IQ. You could call it BBIQ, but there are players who are very knowledgeable about the game who don't seem play the game in a shrewd efficient manner. I think Oscar & West were both just really dang shrewd.)

[bastillon]

what's the argument for TMac over Nash ? concerns for TMac: unknown portability (one-man team, never re-captured the same impact), unknown ceiling, mere top10 offense vs GOAT level offense for Nash, somewhat questionable impact in that Detroit series (Pistons really destroyed them in the last 3 games with TMac on the floor for -19.4 per48 on court scoring margin after Prince defended him more). Nash is clearly far, far better offensively, so do you think TMac makes up for this much on defense ?

[C-izMe]

what's the argument for TMac over Nash ? concerns for TMac: unknown portability (one-man team, never re-captured the same impact), unknown ceiling, mere top10 offense vs GOAT level offense for Nash, somewhat questionable impact in that Detroit series (Pistons really destroyed them in the last 3 games with TMac on the floor for -19.4 per48 on court scoring margin after Prince defended him more). Nash is clearly far, far better offensively, so do you think TMac makes up for this much on defense ?

Nash is a negative on D. TMac is around average IMO.

[Dr Positivity]

In the postseason I favor Tmac's scoring-based game over Nash and Paul's playmaking-based ones, personally

[MisterWestside]

what's the argument for TMac over Nash ? concerns for TMac: unknown portability (one-man team, never re-captured the same impact), unknown ceiling, mere top10 offense vs GOAT level offense for Nash, somewhat questionable impact in that Detroit series (Pistons really destroyed them in the last 3 games with TMac on the floor for -19.4 per48 on court scoring margin after Prince defended him more). Nash is clearly far, far better offensively, so do you think TMac makes up for this much on defense ?

As much as I like Nash and think he should be among the best peaks, I'd love to see him turn Donut Kemp, Jacque Vaughn, and the brilliant DeClercq and Sasser into a GOAT level offense.

And Prince "destroyed T-Mac now?

[therealbig3]

And the difference between T-Mac and Nash offensively isn't that great. T-Mac is on Kobe and Wade's level as an offensive player (better in fact, imo). Nash doesn't destroy them either.

He is still the best though, but it's close enough that their defense compensates.

[Doctor MJ]

In the postseason I favor Tmac's scoring-based game over Nash and Paul's playmaking-based ones, personally

Really? What's your analysis?

[Ewier]

lol @ Nash being "much" better offensively than a dude putting up 32 PPG/6 APG on phenomenal efficiency (+4.5%) with a 30 PER. SMH.

[Doctor MJ]

And the difference between T-Mac and Nash offensively isn't that great. T-Mac is on Kobe and Wade's level as an offensive player (better in fact, imo). Nash doesn't destroy them either.

He is still the best though, but it's close enough that their defense compensates.

Hmm. So I guess I'll just admit that I'm bothered by the TMac campaign right now, despite the fact that it's really quite honest.

I mean, the reality is that if you clearly see Kobe ahead of the current contenders other than TMac, and you can't differentiate Kobe from TMac, I guess you should vote for TMac. As you might guess though, that's not how I see it.

I put Wade ahead of Kobe, TMac, Nash, and the other non-West candidates, and I do it for clear reasons that differentiate him from someone like TMac. The man has a game that he seems to be able to improve simply by adding "it's now or never" effort, which has quite a lot to do with how simple it is. The man bullies the court...despite being smaller than most of the players on the court, and it works, time and again.

I really don't see Kobe the same way. Where Wade is minimalist, Kobe is the ultimate rococo NBA player which shows us many places where he's actually not playing to efficiency, but rather falling prey to old streetballer's tales of mythological heroes.

TMac's more like Kobe, except he's got a lot more question marks for a variety of reasons.

In terms of peak offense, yes I do see a big difference between Nash & Kobe/TMac.

[Doctor MJ]

As much as I like Nash and think he should be among the best peaks, I'd love to see him turn Donut Kemp, Jacque Vaughn, and the brilliant DeClercq and Sasser into a GOAT level offense.

I'd like to see McGrady turn ANY team into anything like a GOAT level offense. Look, I'm not someone who think McGrady actually couldn't get passed the first round - he certainly could have - but let's not pretend that volume scorers who achieve max impact at middling team success aren't a known phenomenon. Choose what you want to prioritize, but the idea that people think McGrady was more suited to create truly great team offenses than Nash is kind of amazing to me.

[MisterWestside]

TMac's more like Kobe, except he's got a lot more question marks for a variety of reasons.

How so? I'd rather go with '03 T-Mac tbh because he's a more instinctive passer -- imagine Kobe in a Magic uniform and being double-teamed. Armstrong is open on the perimeter. Who do you think is more willing to move the ball to the open man instead of being tempted to shoot a "But I'm Michael Jordan 2.0 dammit, WATCH THIS ya'll" 18-foot fadeaway over a double-team?

I'd like to see McGrady turn ANY team into anything like a GOAT level offense. Look, I'm not someone who think McGrady actually couldn't get passed the first round - he certainly could have - but let's not pretend that volume scorers who achieve max impact at middling team success aren't a known phenomenon. Choose what you want to prioritize, but the idea that people think McGrady was more suited to create truly great team offenses than Nash is kind of amazing to me.

If you're McGrady's coach with that talent (or lack thereof) around you, you can do two things:

1. Let T-Mac shoot as much as possible since he's shown the ability to score over anyone in isolation, and allow him to make plays for others when he draws defenses towards him.
2. Run an intricate offense in which everyone helps each other get an open shot. Which takes the ball out of the hands of your more reliable player and puts it into the hands of less talented players. They take on a larger load of the offense; and, as studies have shown time and time again, efficiency decreases with increased volume especially with roleplayers.

Now also consider factors such as risk aversion, etc. that coaches also deal with. Unless you're some kind of offensive genius who design an offense in which everyone on the floor gets their optimal shot that they can convert despite their marginal offesive campabilities, why would you choose 2 over 1?

[Ewier]

[
I really don't see Kobe the same way. Where Wade is minimalist, Kobe is the ultimate rococo NBA player which shows us many places where he's actually not playing to efficiency, but rather falling prey to old streetballer's tales of mythological heroes.

Yet his efficiency at his peak was better than Wade's ever was. Try again.

[Ewier]

Shoot over double-teams? lmao what a moron. Kobe is one of the best playmakers/creators ever and has a great record of making guys better. Idiot.

[Ewier]

The man has a game that he seems to be able to improve simply by adding "it's now or never" effort, which has quite a lot to do with how simple it is.

Oh, so I guess he simply "wasn't trying" when he was shut down by the Sixers and Bulls in 2011, or the Celtics and Thunder in 2012. lmao.

[C-izMe]

Who do you think is more willing to move the ball to the open man instead of being tempted to shoot a "But I'm Michael Jordan 2.0 dammit, WATCH THIS ya'll" 18-foot fadeaway over a double-team?

you just made my day.

And TMac isn't worse than Kobe offensively IMO. They have similar skillsets and the only difference IMO is in the post game and passing ability.

[Ewier]

**** phagget. Shoot over double team instead of passing to the open man? Is that why he was dropping 6 APG and has a GREAT track-record of making teammates better?

The dude with the 5 rings isn't going to make the proper play over the 2nd-round virgin?

**** moron.

[Dr Positivity]

[BattleTested]

**** phagget. Shoot over double team instead of passing to the open man? Is that why he was dropping 6 APG and has a GREAT track-record of making teammates better?

The dude with the 5 rings isn't going to make the proper play over the 2nd-round virgin?

**** moron.

Please ip ban this guy. Seriously he kills the credibility of anyone who argues on Kobe's behalf.

Anyways, I'm not voting in this thread. But I was very confused as to why Jerry West is nominated in 68. Why not a year like 66. He played 28 more games in 66. He scored 5 more points a game. Rebounded better. He led the league in TS% in both seasons. Also outproduced his 68 version in every category in the playoffs. 68 seems to be sort of a random year. Is there something I'm missing?